DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/05/2026/ 12/19/2025; 06/06/2025; 06/04/2025; 03/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. US 11616944 B2 in view of Heo (US 20180234679 A1).
US19/078,195
US11616944B2
Claims 1, 3-5.
determining an intra prediction mode applied to an intra prediction for the current block;
determining an intra prediction mode applied to an intra prediction for the current block; and
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the intra prediction mode; and
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the intra prediction mode,
reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block and a residual block of the current block,
HEO (US 20180234679 A1): [0064] By adding the reconstructed residual signal to the prediction signal that is outputted from the inter-prediction unit 181 or the intra-prediction unit 182, a reconstructed signal may be generated.
wherein the residual block is generated by performing inverse-quantization for quantized coefficients,
HEO (US 20180234679 A1): [0079] The inverse transform unit 230 obtains a residual signal (or residual block) by inversely transforming transform coefficients using an inverse transform scheme.
wherein the generating the prediction block of the current block comprises:
wherein the generating the prediction block of the current block comprises:
configuring reference samples for the intra prediction for the current block;
configuring reference samples for the intra prediction for the current block;
deriving a value of a first prediction sample inside the prediction block of the current block based on at least one among the configured reference samples; and
deriving a value of a first prediction sample inside the prediction block of the current block based on at least one among the configured reference samples; and
deriving a value of a second prediction sample inside the prediction block based on the first prediction sample inside the prediction block and at least one among the configured reference samples,
deriving a value of a second prediction sample inside the prediction block based on the first prediction sample inside the prediction block and at least one among the configured reference samples,
wherein the deriving the value of the first prediction sample comprises averaging two consecutive reference samples adjacent to each other.
wherein the deriving the value of the first prediction sample comprises averaging two consecutive reference samples adjacent to each other.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the deriving the value of the second prediction sample is performed based on an interpolation using the first prediction sample and at least one among the configured reference samples.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the deriving the value of the second prediction sample is performed based on an interpolation using the first prediction sample and at least one among the configured reference samples.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of HEO and apply them to US11616944B2. One would be motivated as such as to reduce the number of bits to represent the video data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heo (US 20180234679 A1).
Regarding claim 4, … a bit stream generated by a method …, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 4 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by HEO which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0387]).
Regarding claim 5, a method for transmitting a bitstream only containing details on how the bitstream is being generated include embodiments where the generation of the bitstream is not performed by the claimed method. The impact on the limitations directed towards the generation of the bitstream only affect the scope of the contents of the bitstream, so those steps should only be considered in terms of what they would require the contents of the information in the bitstream to contain and not actual steps in the method.
The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed method for transmitting the bitstream. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the generation of bitstream in terms of how the video gets encoded within the bitstream, there is provided no functional relationship between the bitstream’s contents once generated and the process for transmitting the bitstream. As result, the contents of the bitstream are non-functional descriptive language and will be given not patentable weight. See Id.
Thus, the claim scope is just a method for transmission and is anticipated by HEO which recites a method for transmission ([0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached at 57127227384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights